Here you go again. You do understand that the very definition of the term "self" implies individuality, right? So you want to say "True Self", in capital letters, so as to make it mean a self without individuality, which is simply illogical.
No sir you keep saying the Buddha Nature(True Self) is a "thing"
but sir this is wrong the Buddha Nature(True Self) is not a "thing" you can possess
here I qoute this passage to again since you have already forgotten since page 25
Mahaparinirvana sutra chapter 3(end of the chapter)
it is [also] said that there is the Self. This is as in the case of the learned Doctor, who knows well the medicinal and non-medicinal qualities of milk. It is not as with common mortals, who might measure the size of their own self. Common mortals and the ignorant may measure the size of their own self and say, 'It is like the size of a thumb, like a mustard seed, or like the size of a mote.' When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self.'
Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata. For the sake of beings, he says "there is the Self in all things" O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!"
As you can see your Idea that the Buddha Nature is a "thing" is incorrect.
The fact of the matter is that you are clinging to a set of ideas, and working diligently in this thread to propound them, simply because, as catmoon mentioned, you are afraid to admit that the ideas you have been clinging to are illusory.
Buddha Nature is not a "thing". It is not directly comprehensible by the mind, or by any sort of thoughts. Any attempt to even talk about it can only reveal what it is not, hence via negativa.
It's easy to understand. Place your hand on a piece of paper, and trace the outline of your hand with a pencil. Then remove your hand. Everything that is "inside" of the line is the same paper as everything that is "outside" of the line. It is all one piece of paper. But the line (self, sense of individuality, ego, hologram created by the skandhas, etc.) allows for a distortion, a separation between "inside" and "outside" of the line. The shape of the penciled form on the paper is different for everyone, as no two hands are exactly alike. The specific form of the individual is the "self".
But when you erase the line from the paper, there is no inside, no outside, no line, no self, and no form to be held by any concept whatsoever. Therefore, to continually cling to any words, phrases, images, or any idea at all, is to only give continuity to the pencil markings on the paper, to the sense of separation and individuality that has been fostered by culture and by society since the birth of the human being. That is the "I" structure, the ego, the illusion, and that is what goes. Since it is an illusion, saying, "the illusion goes away" is actually an absurdity, as since it is an illusion, it was never 'there' to begin with.you see Azidonis That is the "I" structure, the ego, the illusion, and that is what goes. Since it is an illusion, saying, "the illusion goes away" is actually an absurdity, as since it is an illusion, it was never 'there' to begin with: (I agree 110% the false Self is incorrect)
But umm...Thats not the True Self so go back to page 28 and read what i wrote